Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

Future manned missions in deep space would likely be short, as well as long, correct?

So, when they mention no future manned craft will be built for deep space missions, with aluminum shielding, it should exclude short missions,
right?

well, since according to your (non fantasy land) beliefs, they are referring to pure aluminium shielding not the alloy, the alloy is completely 100%
different material.

Now, you have short missions being safe, we will have short missions in future, like Apollo did, but it's not worth mentioning how Apollo was
safe, because we all 'know' it is safe, so what's the problem?!?

the problem is still long duration missions..

what you are suggesting is that they design two completely different crafts for two different mission types. they have already stated that they want
the single craft to be able to do all missions.

when boeing are researching about a new next gen passenger jet, they must absolutely have an indepth section about the cessna 172??

Thousands of scientists have examined Apollo samples and data (you know, the data sent back from the moon from the locations they landed at) and not
one of them has ever queried the veracity of the samples of data. Not one credible expert has ever proven that anything in the Apollo images, live TV
or 16mm footage is false.

You, on the other hand, have no expertise in the subject and have yet to produce a single piece of factual data that disproves anything presented by
the Apollo program. Who's living in a fantasy world?

However, the greyest area is the "alternate endings" planning. That is, a back-up crew doing the full mission while the "real" astronauts remain
behind. If there is a disaster / tragedy, all it takes is a little studio editing of the canned footage, and out pop the "real" astronauts with a
parlor trick, and boom...there's your successful mission. This area of investigation and theory is the most interesting, imo.

I'm not sure where you are going with this. All of the missions had back up crews that were there as replacements in case anything happened - as it
did with Apollo 13 and Ken Mattingly being ruled out of the mission. The prime crew members were all filmed and photographed getting in to the
Saturns, were then seen in TV broadcasts during the mission in conditions that could not be simulated on Earth, and the back up crew members were
around mission control during the mission.

This photograph (one of my favourites because I have met all three astronauts in it)

Shows two of the back up crew of Apollo 11 (Jim Lovell and Fred Haise) in mission control during Apollo 11.

taken during Apollo 8 shows Neil Armstrong, Fred Haise and Buzz Aldrin - the back up crew.

Your scenario doesn't work there.

I respect the work on the imaging of the Apollo 8 referenced earlier. The backtracking of the stars and weather images in itself is convincing,
interphase radiation and materials science is not convincing, it's a distraction.

Thank you for the compliment - I have considerably more on my site which you may find interesting.

what you are suggesting is that they design two completely different crafts for two different mission types. they have already stated that they want
the single craft to be able to do all missions.

when boeing are researching about a new next gen passenger jet, they must absolutely have an indepth section about the cessna 172??

Brutal analogy, as usual..

We have cessna's in use, and many other aircraft, like passenger jets. We have no spacecraft capable of manned deep space missions, whether for short
or long stays.

We are trying to build a craft capable of manned deep space missions. We tried to 'return' man to the moon, and it failed miserably.

They said the initial lunar missions would be short, Apollo-length visits.

Everything they did, and are still trying to figure out right now, is a manned mission which can safely go into deep space.

Of course, they called it a 'return' to the moon. They can't say we haven't left Earth orbit yet, because they work for the agency who said we landed
on the moon.

And now, they talk about problems not solved for
a 'long term' mission, to Mars, etc.

The story goes on and on...

At first, they landed men on the moon, over 40 years ago. Then, they go back to Earth orbit for the next 30 years.
And then, they decide to try landing men on the
moon again. It was a disaster, as we know.

So they goofed it up, and now, they want to figure out how to send humans to Mars, someday in future...

How could they land on the moon over 40 years ago,
dump it like trash, spend the next 30 years in LEO, due to a lack of money. They actually spent more money on the Shuttle program than on the Apollo
program..

And it was a lack of money again, causing the failed attempt to 'return' man to the moon, supposedly.
They gave an estimate of the total cost, and got it, but spent it all, and got even more money, but spent it all, soon after.

Anything is a lack of money, in the same way, because it is impossible to be proven wrong. 'Money solves all problems'.

The lack of money excuse gets even better, when it gets spent trying to develop...
....technology...required to land on the moon..

They were told to use 'heritage' technology, as much as possible, because it is Apollo's technology.

We have cessna's in use, and many other aircraft, like passenger jets. We have no spacecraft capable of manned deep space missions, whether for short
or long stays.

if we are to use your logic, technically NASA has no spacecraft capable of reaching LEO also.. it must mean the ISS is a hoax ZOMG.

ETA: you didnt deny it, are you actually suggesting that during development of the Boeing 787 dreamliner, they really needed to have an indepth study
of an aircraft that is designed for a different task?
that they must study all aspects of light aircraft because it can carry 4 passengers, short distances, before they can feasibly begin to consider how
to design a heavy aircraft designed to carry 200+ passengers over long distances??

We are trying to build a craft capable of manned deep space missions. We tried to 'return' man to the moon, and it failed miserably.

your opinion that it failed miserably. but to date we have not tried to return yet, it is still in development.

They said the initial lunar missions would be short, Apollo-length visits.

initially, then it will progressively get longer and longer..

Everything they did, and are still trying to figure out right now, is a manned mission which can safely go into deep space.

and keep the astronauts safe for the longer missions.

Of course, they called it a 'return' to the moon. They can't say we haven't left Earth orbit yet, because they work for the agency who said we
landed on the moon.

oh so reaching an asteroid landing on mars.. you are just going to ignore those goals?

And now, they talk about problems not solved for
a 'long term' mission, to Mars, etc.

has beenexplained to you over and over already.. a mission to mars will not be short.

The story goes on and on...

At first, they landed men on the moon, over 40 years ago. Then, they go back to Earth orbit for the next 30 years.
And then, they decide to try landing men on the
moon again. It was a disaster, as we know.

what was a disaster?? when did they launch man to the moon after Apollo?? please give me a date for the launch thanks.
is this your "non-fantasy" reality again?

So they goofed it up, and now, they want to figure out how to send humans to Mars, someday in future...

How could they land on the moon over 40 years ago,
dump it like trash, spend the next 30 years in LEO, due to a lack of money. They actually spent more money on the Shuttle program than on the Apollo
program..

oh so you think it was a good idea to have the shuttle AND the Apollo program running at the same time?? you must be good with economics.

And it was a lack of money again, causing the failed attempt to 'return' man to the moon, supposedly.
They gave an estimate of the total cost, and got it, but spent it all, and got even more money, but spent it all, soon after.

so projects never ever run over estimated costs is that your point?

Anything is a lack of money, in the same way, because it is impossible to be proven wrong. 'Money solves all problems'.

The lack of money excuse gets even better, when it gets spent trying to develop...
....technology...required to land on the moon..

so technology comes free of charge?? you should probably check out how much money most companies spend on R&D, although I know you wont bother.

They were told to use 'heritage' technology, as much as possible, because it is Apollo's technology.

No excuse.

and they have.. the heat shield of orion. the aerodynamics of orion, the parachute system of orion.
or do you think these are all brand new concepts?

The 'blobs and specks' are clearly identifiable pieces of hardware, exactly where they should be. They also show rocks and craters and trails exactly
where they should be.

India and Japan pictured them too. India, Japan, China an Russia also all took images showing surface features that corroborate Apollo images.

All you're proving is how willing you are to ram your head in the sand.

Blobs and specks of sand, right?

This is the first time I've ever heard of blobs and specks being "clearly identifiable pieces of
hardware"!!

How do you know the blobs and specks are pieces of equipment? Because they match up to their equipment, which they left on the moon, right?

Is it possible to put blobs and dots in these images, to match up with equipment they say is on the moon?

For sure, they could fake all, or some, of these dots and blobs, as needed.

I think the dots and specks are really there, but the 'footprints' were put in the images later on...

This is what I think they did..

They already had satellite images of the lunar surface, before Apollo 'landed' there, as we know.

There are countless dots and blobs seen in these images, of course.

They simply find the areas of dots and blobs that will fit as 'the equipment', the 'LM', of each landing site.

Iirc, there is an image taken before Apollo landed, showing the exact same dots and blobs attributed to Apollo equipment, and the LM...

It is denied, of course, after being caught. Not a chance.

This trick is used by magicians, who claim they read minds, or can see the future..

It is just an illusion, of course.

The key is to make everyone think he can read minds.

In the Apollo example, it is an illusion of equipment and landers being left by astronauts on the moon.

Although we realize they look like little dots and
blobs, we accept their claim of being equipment they left on the moon.

They all match up to the exact spots where they landed, where the LM's landed, and where equipment was left.

A perfect match, and matches images from other countries, too.

What you don't realize is that the same exact dots and blobs were already identified as features of the moon, well before Apollo came along.

This explains why they will never show close-up, high resolution images of any equipment, since it is not there. In fact, it would show there are
actual features of the surface, which would truly confirm they did not land on the moon.

The images do not even match up, with the surface images.

The Apollo 15 LM is a great example of this..

Images show a large blob where the lander came down, disturbed soil on the lunar surface, which is shown in the images, taken from lunar orbit.

The problem is that the images supposedly taken on the lunar surface show no disturbed soil around the lander, which is simply impossible.

A real disturbance seen from orbit is obviously going to be seen in many images taken from the
lunar surface.

The area beyond this disturbance is seen in surface images, but there is nothing different about it.

I think they assumed the blobs should be large enough to portray a lander, with the engine disturbing the soil around the craft during its
descent.

But they forgot to make the same disturbance for their surface images, and they've shown that it was all just a hoax.

Constellation's goal of 'returning' to the moon by 2016, then by 2020, was truly a miserable failure.

was it launched or was the spacecraft even constructed??

That is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact.

it is a matter of opinion, constellation still exists with Orion and the SLS.

The goal was to land men on the moon, by 2020.

It was not required to be capable of long stays of a month, or a year, on the moon. It was not designed to go to Mars, either.

All it was intended to be was capable of doing what Apollo supposedly did, and that's it.

really??? a simple, quick search of the constellation program gives me this:

The Constellation Program (abbreviated CxP) was a human spaceflight program developed by NASA, the space agency of the United States, from 2005 to
2009. The major goals of the program were "completion of the International Space Station" and a "return to the Moon no later than 2020" with
a crewed flight to the planet Mars as the ultimate goal. The program's logo reflected the three stages of the program: the Earth
(ISS), the Moon, and finally Mars

This is why they were told to use Apollo's technology, which supposedly worked so well before.

and again does Orion use a similar heat shield?
does Orion have similar aerodynamics?
does Orion employ similar parachute design?

You said Apollo's technology worked for short missions, but not long missions, right?

So when they were told to use Apollo's technology as much as possible, they were working on a short mission, and not long missions, for it could not
go on long missions..true?

This was supposed to be something that cannot fail, because it was believed, proved, to have worked superbly, several times.

The mission without an excuse, that we had done before, could not fail...

Except it did fail, so miserably.

you might have had a point except you ignored the ultimate goal of constellation, which is to have a crewed flight to mars... so yea, you kind of
wasted your time on this post, as well as mine with this.

I think the dots and specks are really there, but the 'footprints' were put in the images later on...

This is what I think they did..

think they did?? you sure seem sure of your conviction that they definitely fake the lunar landings.

oh BTW how do you suppose they should fake the footprints back in 69-72 when they could not possibly know who or even when the next country would send
a rover to the moon and find that there are no footprints?

This is the first time I've ever heard of blobs and specks being "clearly identifiable pieces of
hardware"!!

How do you know the blobs and specks are pieces of equipment? Because they match up to their equipment, which they left on the moon, right?

It isn't the first time because you've been told about it many times. I know, and the rest of the world knows because the largest pieces are quite
obviously the LM and the rover (in later missions), and the remainder are exactly where they can be seen in surface photos, 16mm footage and TV
footage. That equipment is exactly where it should be. Other surface features are also exactly where they should be.

The Panoramic Camera used in Apollos 15-17 also picked out that hardware and changes on the ground as those missions progressed in ways entirely
consistent with the mission timelines, see here:

Is it possible to put blobs and dots in these images, to match up with equipment they say is on the moon?

When was this done? By whom? Where? The Pan Cam images I mentioned above were public domain from the start - there's one for sale on ebay right now.
The other surface images have also been public domain for decades.

For sure, they could fake all, or some, of these dots and blobs, as needed.

In your completely unsupported opinion based on prejudice and knee-jerk denial.

I think the dots and specks are really there, but the 'footprints' were put in the images later on...

Erm, haven't you just been claiming that they were added? Did India add the footpaths as well?

This is what I think they did..

They already had satellite images of the lunar surface, before Apollo 'landed' there, as we know.

There are countless dots and blobs seen in these images, of course.

They simply find the areas of dots and blobs that will fit as 'the equipment', the 'LM', of each landing site.

Wow. Just, wow. That is one of the most astonishing pieces of stupidity you've every come out with. The scoured the lunar surface for natural features
that matched the shape of the LM and the configuration of hardware on the ground, and those locations just happened to match exactly where the
broadcasts of TV signal and data from the ALSEPS were coming from, and also just happened to have the same rocks and craters as in the surface and
orbital Apollo imagery. That's ahel of a coincidence.

Iirc, there is an image taken before Apollo landed, showing the exact same dots and blobs attributed to Apollo equipment, and the LM...

You do not recall correctly and that claim is completely false. You know full well, because I've already done the work, that not one image that
existed prior to Apollo showed anything like the level of surface detail seen in the images that were later confirmed by probes from the US and other
countries. Here, read it again:

Prove it. There is no such image, you made it up, they were not caught out because what are claiming is completely false.

This trick is used by magicians, who claim they read minds, or can see the future..

It is just an illusion, of course.

The key is to make everyone think he can read minds.

In the Apollo example, it is an illusion of equipment and landers being left by astronauts on the moon.

Although we realize they look like little dots and
blobs, we accept their claim of being equipment they left on the moon.

Not an illusion, it is you putting your hands over your eyes and going 'lalalala.'

They all match up to the exact spots where they landed, where the LM's landed, and where equipment was left.

A perfect match, and matches images from other countries, too.

They are a perfect match because they are there, and the other countries found them verifies the Apollo narrative.

What you don't realize is that the same exact dots and blobs were already identified as features of the moon, well before Apollo came
along.

You have never even looked to compare them properly, so how do you know? The major surface features were identified by lunar orbiter images, but the
detail available in the 16mm, and more importantly the live TV footage is much greater. Those images were publicly available long before the LRO or
any of the other probes that also show those details.

This explains why they will never show close-up, high resolution images of any equipment, since it is not there. In fact, it would show there are
actual features of the surface, which would truly confirm they did not land on the moon.

The images do not even match up, with the surface images.

They show the highest resolution images there are, at a dpi that is comparable with terrestrial satellites. Feel free to prove they are incorrect.

The Apollo 15 LM is a great example of this..

Images show a large blob where the lander came down, disturbed soil on the lunar surface, which is shown in the images, taken from lunar orbit.

The problem is that the images supposedly taken on the lunar surface show no disturbed soil around the lander, which is simply impossible.

A real disturbance seen from orbit is obviously going to be seen in many images taken from the
lunar surface.

You mean like the disturbances detected by the India and Japan? That kind of disturbance? Or are you still under the illusion that the LM had some
sort of massive engine that would dig huge holes in the ground?

The area beyond this disturbance is seen in surface images, but there is nothing different about it.

I think

No, you don't...

they assumed the blobs should be large enough to portray a lander, with the engine disturbing the soil around the craft during its
descent.

But they forgot to make the same disturbance for their surface images, and they've shown that it was all just a hoax.

You're just making stuff up again. I'll repeat what I said earlier, just to make it clear because your knee is jerking too hard for you to read it
properly:

There are no images, not one, of the Apollo landing sites taken before Apollo that show the level of detail visible in Apollo imagery - including live
TV. That also includes images taken from orbit. Those surface details, including the configuration of surface hardware and the trails made between
that hardware, are confirmed by LRO images and also by photographs taken by other countries. They could not, and did not, know about the smaller rocks
and craters that appeared in the photographs, live TV and 16mm footage before the landings, and yet those features are confirmed by later observations
by probes from many nations.

Your claim that they hunted around for areas that just happened to look right just smells of bovine by-product, and plenty of it.

i have to disagree with point number 6: [here's why]
Assuming i get the chance of going to the moon, landing safely on it, and being able to step foot on it, I would screw all my training for a chance to
goof around, LOL: it would be my way of showing my joy and [personal] victory, that of the company sending me there, humanity, and wanting to do
something not many people can say they did: goofing around on the moon! on the fricking moon!!

I really don't know what to believe about this Moon trip.. it should have been repeated if it really happened, and by now we should have good enough
telescopes to be able to see the surface of the moon and if there is any flag on it or not.

Regarding the point no.1 .. there must have been a serious reason to destroy the original tapes of the landing: serious cover-up of ... i dont know..
aliens? [i refer to aliens of any kind - predators, friendly, grays, signs of a lost civilization .. whatever you fancy] or even signs of god? hell?
heaven?
or perhaps there was never any landing, and what better way to cover this up than by saying "the tapes got destroyed, but then we felt we had to redo
them" ... ?

really??? a simple, quick search of the constellation program gives me this:

The Constellation Program (abbreviated CxP) was a human spaceflight program developed by NASA, the space agency of the United States, from 2005 to
2009. The major goals of the program were "completion of the International Space Station" and a "return to the Moon no later than 2020" with
a crewed flight to the planet Mars as the ultimate goal. The program's logo reflected the three stages of the program: the Earth
(ISS), the Moon, and finally Mars

You're referring to their vision of future human space exploration, as the ultimate goal being a manned Mars mission..

It was not their goal, then or now, to try a manned Mars mission...

It was a manned moon landing, as Apollo supposedly did, and that's all it was intended to be, period.

End.

originally posted by: choos
you might have had a point except you ignored the ultimate goal of constellation, which is to have a crewed flight to mars... so yea, you kind of
wasted your time on this post, as well as mine with this.

Again, it was not yet a real goal, it was/is a dream goal, in going to Mars, some day in future, that's all...

think they did?? you sure seem sure of your conviction that they definitely fake the lunar landings.

oh BTW how do you suppose they should fake the footprints back in 69-72 when they could not possibly know who or even when the next country would send
a rover to the moon and find that there are no footprints?

What else would you suggest, then? Faking it without faking any footprints?

I don't get your point, here...

If they faked the landings, it doesn't matter if they faked footprints, or not!!

And yes, I think the images show real features on the lunar surface, it makes perfect sense to me...but I can't prove this beyond any doubt, as
yet..

You're referring to their vision of future human space exploration, as the ultimate goal being a manned Mars mission..

It was not their goal, then or now, to try a manned Mars mission...

It was a manned moon landing, as Apollo supposedly did, and that's all it was intended to be, period.

End.

with a CREWED FLIGHT TO MARS BEING THE ULTIMATE GOAL.

i didnt think your denial would go this deep.. you know when they say the ultimate GOAL is to get man to mars and you have the ability to deny that
getting man to mars was not a GOAL.

Again, it was not yet a real goal, it was/is a dream goal, in going to Mars, some day in future, that's all...

so when they say the ultimate goal is a crewed flight to mars, its not part of their goal at all???
and you have authority to decide that do you??

What else would you suggest, then? Faking it without faking any footprints?

that is precisely what you have suggested..

you are saying that they needed to "add in the footpaths" in images taken of the Apollo landing sites.
obviously you think they faked the moon landings, you didnt say they needed to add in the "blobs" for the equipment only the footpaths.

I don't get your point, here...

If they faked the landings, it doesn't matter if they faked footprints, or not!!

you are suggesting they had to add in the footpaths after imaging the lunar landing sites with satellites such as the LRO.
why would they need to photoshop in footpaths as you have suggested?? because they are not physically there.

if the footpaths are not physically there, then it will be plainly obviously to see from satellites or rovers.
NASA landed man on the moon between 69-72.
so how could they possibly know when the next country would send a rover to the moon and image the landing sites back in 1972?

And yes, I think the images show real features on the lunar surface, it makes perfect sense to me...but I can't prove this beyond any doubt, as
yet..

yes indeed, the footpaths are real features on the lunar surface as you have just admitted to.
the footpaths are also real features on the lunar surface now.. so congratulations

originally posted by: turbonium1
Nothing gets through to you, about Constellation's failure...

Another moon landing, with Apollo's technology, being done by 2020.

no it doesnt. because it was cancelled, it never failed.

It would prove Apollo, as genuine, because the very same technology is used, as before...

which technology??

Likewise, it could only fail if it was not genuine technology, as it cannot work, and proves the hoax...

Deny the truth, or admit the truth, but it is still the truth...period.

i should repeat since you dont really understand, constellation was cancelled, it never failed.
so which technology failed?? are you going to say that pure aluminium was insufficient to protect the astronauts??
or is it something else??

A mission to Mars is no excuse. It is an ultimate goal we hope to reach some day, in the distant future...

it is a stated goal.

They were supposed to use Apollo's technology, as much as possible. It means they had no excuse, they could never fail, because they were
simply using all the same technology as Apollo used.

Constellation's mission had the same goal, and had the same technology, as Apollo.

It had no excuse.

As you all know, too..

was Apollo cancelled back in 1960-1965????
why was constellation cancelled??
what was the allocated % of the federal budget for Apollo and constellation???
what technology from constellation failed??

and i guess i have to repeat it again, constellation was cancelled, it did not have get the chance to fail.

The documents say it failed due to sorely lacking in mature technologies, required in landing humans on the moon.

One paper mentions that they were told to use 'heritage' technology, as much as possible, to reach that goal, and he wonders what the #%%
happened...

So now, this doesn't make any sense, as he points out.

But he does not say what the hell happened, or say if he asked them what went wrong, or say anything else, at all.

Right, it's no big deal, of course. Move along now, folks!

In Apollo-land, nobody ever asks rational questions!! It works better that way....

It is just not reality, of course.

A technology that works, and is the only technology ever proven to work, will always work in future, the very same way. It will not change over time.

But it has to work, in the first place, to ever be used, later on.

originally posted by: choos
with a CREWED FLIGHT TO MARS BEING THE ULTIMATE GOAL.

i didnt think your denial would go this deep.. you know when they say the ultimate GOAL is to get man to mars and you have the ability to deny that
getting man to mars was not a GOAL.

so when they say the ultimate goal is a crewed flight to mars, its not part of their goal at all???
and you have authority to decide that do you??

Mars might have been their ultimate goal, same way Saturn could have been their ultimate goal, or Neptune, or Planet X!!

Apollo once had made plans to eventually build moon bases, as the 'ultimate' goal, if you want to go on...

I'm talking about their real goal. as working to reach this goal, nothing else.

Get it?

originally posted by: choos
you are saying that they needed to "add in the footpaths" in images taken of the Apollo landing sites.
obviously you think they faked the moon landings, you didnt say they needed to add in the "blobs" for the equipment only the footpaths.

you are suggesting they had to add in the footpaths after imaging the lunar landing sites with satellites such as the LRO.
why would they need to photoshop in footpaths as you have suggested?? because they are not physically there.

if the footpaths are not physically there, then it will be plainly obviously to see from satellites or rovers.
NASA landed man on the moon between 69-72.
so how could they possibly know when the next country would send a rover to the moon and image the landing sites back in 1972?

Adding footprints is done to lend more 'authenticity' to the claims.

They did it after we saw images taken before Apollo supposedly landed, showing the same features claimed to be Apollo gear.

Footprints were added in response to being caught. It's absurd, really.

Images didn't show footprints from other sources, but now, it's a big deal if they don't show up on their later images??

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.